V.P. VASU v. THE TAHASILDAR, KANNUR; THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMBUR; VALIYAPURAYIL BALU

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2015/8TH SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 17914 of 2015 (L) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: - ------------ V.P.VASU AGED 72 YEARS S/O.KESAVAN ACHARY, PENSIONER, MELEDATH VALIYAPURAYIL, KADAMBUR AMSOM & DESOM, EDAKKAD PO KANNUR DISTRICT BY SRI. V.P.VASU (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- ## 1. THE TAHASILDAR THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR 670001 ## 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADAMBUR, KADACHIRA, KANNUR 670 621. 3. VALIYAPURAYIL BALU AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN ACHARY, PENSIONER, MELEDATH VALIYAPURAYIL, KADAMBUR AMSOM & DESOM, EDAKKAD PO KANNUR DISTRICT NOW AT 29, RAGHAVANDRA BLOCK 5TH MAIN , NEAR JALAGERAMMA TEMPLE, SRINAGAR BANGALORE 560 050. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.AVINASH R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAJIT RATNAKARAN R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON 30-07-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17914 of 2015 (L) --------------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------------- - P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.180/1923 DATED 29.1.1923 OF S.R.O, KADACHIRA - P2THE TRUE OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1782/1971 DATED 1.10.1979 OF S.R.O., KADACHIRA - P3THE TRUE OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.4.2012 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAMBUR - P4THE TRUE OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.13 OF THE 1ST RESPONDNET - P5THE TRUE OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.4.2014 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT - P6THE TRUE OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------- TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.,** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30[th] day of July 2015** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who appears in person before this Court with the following prayers: - a) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Ext.P7 (sic) notice and all further proceedings thereon; - b) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that the petitioner is entitled to remit basic tax for 3½ cents in Sy. No.23/13 of Kadambur Amsom Desom, Kannur Taluk; 2. His contentions are that the property having an extent of 1 acre 89 cents situated in Survey No.50/6 of the Kadambur village originally belonged to Thambai and Ambady, who are stated to be the predecessors of the petitioner. By Ext.P1 it is stated that the property was partitioned between five thavazhis and a deity or kazhakam attached to the property was kept in common. The first thavazhy was given the right to stay in the ancestral house situated in the property and all members had a right to participate in the adiyandthirams and festivals connected to the W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** deity which were to be held with funds raised from all thavazhis. It is stated that thereafter other documents for partition were also executed by the members of the family but the deity and the property necessary for the worship of the same were left in common. It is stated that the property now been used as a temple has an extent of 3 ½ cents in resurvey No.23/13 and the petitioner's father was paying property tax in respect of the same. After the death of the petitioner's father, basic tax was being received from the petitioner which is evident from Ext.P3. Ext.P3 shows that basic tax was received in respect of 3½ cents of the property for the year 2012-2013 from the petitioner for and on behalf of the Karanavar of the thavazhi. However, it appears that for the year 2013-14, the second respondent refused to accept basic tax and the petitioner had to approach the first respondent seeking directions for receipt of basic tax. Ext.P4 order was passed by the first respondent on 03.08.2014 stating that the right to the property does not seen to have devolved on the petitioner exclusively and therefore tax can be accepted only from petitioner and others for and on behalf of Karanavur of thavazhi. Accordingly, Ext.P5 basic tax receipt was issued to the petitioner showing that basic tax is W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** received for 1.42 Ares of property from the petitioner and others for and on behalf of the Karanavar of the thavazhi. It is submitted that by Ext.P6 notice the first respondent has now required the petitioner to appear for a hearing at 11 am on 17.06.2015. Ext.P6 shows that a complaint has been received from the third respondent in the matter of remittance of tax. It was in the above circumstances that the notice has been issued to the petitioner with respect to remittance of basic tax of 3 ½ cents of land in re-survey No.23/13 in Kadamboor amsom desom of Kannur Taluk. The notice is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it is issued at the instance of the third respondent who is the petitioner's brother. It is stated that the petitioner apprehends that it is to upset Ext.P4 order issued by the first respondent that the notice has now been issued. The petitioner would contend that since the matter regarding remittance of tax is finally decided by the first respondent, he has become functous officio in the matter and that no useful purpose will be served by a notice and hearing in the matter by the same authority but for the harassment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the basic tax is being paid by him only in his capacity as the representative of the Karanavan of W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** the Thavazhi. By Ext.P4, it has now been modified as the tax being paid by the petitioner and others on behalf of the Karanavan of the Thavazhi. It is the case of the petitioner that he is staying in the ancestral house in the property and is carrying out all the duties which were expected of the members of the first thavazhi. The parties are also senior citizens and no useful purpose will be served by prolonging the litigation in respect of payment of basic tax which does not confer any right, it is submitted. 3. Heard the petitioner in person and Sri.K.R.Avinash, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and Government Pleader. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent that Ext.P6 is only a notice issued to the petitioner to be present for a hearing. There is nothing objectionable in the notice and the petitioner has no reason to challenge the same, it is contended. It is further stated that there is no document releasing the right over the property to the petitioner as claimed by him. Since the petitioner is not the Karanavan of the first thavazhi as can be seen from the cause title of the writ petition itself, he cannot seek to pay basic tax of the property as the Karanavar. It is further alleged W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** that the 3[rd] respondent had been paying property tax to the Panchayat in the name of all surviving sons of late Kesavan Achari. Ext.R3(a) receipt is produced by the 3[rd] respondent. By Ext.R3(b), the Panchayat has exempted the payment of property tax and no further payment is necessary, it is alleged. It is also contended that the payment of basic tax is only to take advantage of such payment to further his claims on the right to administer the property. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs, since the petitioner is a vexatious litigant it is alleged. 4. On going through the pleadings and the materials on record, it is seen that the right to administer the kazhakam attached to the property in question has been left in common by Exts.P1 and P2 documents. The petitioner claims that he has been staying in the house mentioned in Exts.P1 along with his family. He and his family are the only occupants of the house now, it is contended. He has been carrying out all the duties which are to be carried out by the first tavazhi by Ext.P1 document. This statement is disputed by the counsel for the third respondent stating that he is attempting to usurp the administration of the temple to the exclusion of other members who are entitled to part W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** take in the administration. Though the 3[rd] respondent also contends that payment of tax in respect of the property is exempted, by Ext.R1(b), it is clear that the exemption is in respect of Property Tax payable to the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act. The dispute here is only with regard to payment of basic tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 5. In any view of the matter, it is seen that the payment of tax in Ext.P3 was only by the petitioner for and on behalf of the karanavan of the thavazhi. It is further made clear in Ext.P4 that the tax will thereafter be accepted in the name of the thavazhi by recording that it is being paid by the petitioners and others. Land holder in terms of Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act includes the registered holder of such land. The holder of the land being the Thavazhi, payment of tax by the petitioner on behalf of the Thavazhi can give him no right or title. The petitioner has no exclusive right over the property in question. This is admitted by him at the time of hearing also. This Court in **Nevin Raju v. Basheer** (2015(3) KLT SN 4) relying on earlier decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court has clearly held that the acceptance of basic tax from a person cannot confer on him a right W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** to which he is not otherwise entitled to under the relevant title deeds. 6. The third respondent has no case that the petitioner is a stranger to the property. It is also admitted that the father of the petitioner and the third respondent had been paying basic tax in respect of the property. Since the petitioner is admittedly staying in the house in the property which is referred to in Ext.P4, I do not see how the third respondent would be aggrieved by the acceptance of basic tax in respect of 3½ cents of property from the petitioner and others for and on behalf of the Karanavar. Such payment can only be to the benefit of the third respondent also, if he claims a right over the property as well. 7. Though Ext.P6 is only in the nature of a notice, in view of the specific contentions raised by the third respondent with regard to the reasons for issuance of such a notice, I am convinced that no useful purpose will be served by dragging the petitioner and other respondents who are septuagenarians before the Tahasildar once again in a matter which stands concluded by him by Ext.P4 order. If at all the third respondent has any grievance against Ext.P4, he has to take up the same before appropriate authorities under the W.P.(c) No.17914 of 2015 **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Land Tax Rules or the Transfer of Registry Rules. A review of the order passed by the Tahasildar is not contemplated under either of the Rules. This is more so since no right can accrue to the petitioner by reason of payment of basic tax by him. More so, it is not clear on what provision of law the show cause notice is based on. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P6 notice cannot be proceeded with. The respondents are directed not to proceed with any adjudication on the basis of Ext.P6 notice. However, it is made clear that the acceptance of basic tax from the petitioner will confer no independent right on him other than what he is entitled to under Exts.P1 and P2 or any other valid deeds of title. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **ANU SIVARAMAN (JUDGE)** sj